Stop talking 'reunification'

The Korea Times

The Korea Times

Opinion

Andrew Salmon

Stop talking 'reunification'

Posted : 2015-06-22 16:58

Updated : 2015-06-22 17:02

By Andrew Salmon

I recently attended a conference at a specialist academic institution on the emergence of private finance in North Korea. Opening remarks were to be delivered by the unification minister.

I was sitting with a fellow foreign journalist and a North Korean analyst as that gentleman strode to the lectern. About a minute into his speech, the three of us glanced at each other and ― as if on cue ― rolled our eyes. The minister was ignoring the conference topic and instead, rehashing tired old arguments about denuclearization and reunification.

Subsequently and thankfully, the conference itself proceeded as planned. Some remarkable and promising information about financial developments "up there" was presented and discussed. But the "r" word had been mentioned, the seed had been planted.

The conference finished with a Q&A. A question was raised about the likelihood of a peaceful, agreed-upon reunification between the Koreas. In response, one speaker ― a man who some consider the world's leading expert on the Kimdom ― dismissed the possibility as "fantasy."

At a time when reunification has become a political buzzword, his comment is worth heeding.

President Park Geun-hye got the ball rolling by describing reunification (under the aegis of Seoul, not Pyongyang) as "hitting the jackpot."

I don't disagree; the long-term benefits for a unified Korea would be immense. On the strategic front, a causus bellus in Northeast Asia would evaporate, as would Pyongyang's nuclear threat. On the human rights front, a horrific situation would be obviated.

Economically, the whole peninsula would be reconnected to Eurasia, granting direct road, rail and pipeline access. The rich resources of northern Korea could be effectively exploited. About 23 million "new" Koreans would be added to the labor force and welcomed into the global family. And the commercial possibilities generated by the connection of northern Korea to the global economy and the rebuilding of its infrastructure would be immense.

Alas, there is an elephant in the room. The harsh reality is that there is no process underway between North and South Korea to achieve reunification. And without a process, how can we expect an outcome? Yet significant high-level thinking and talk-time is devoted to reunification.

This has led to some farcical policies. The lowest estimate I have come across for year one reunification costs is $50 billion. During the previous administration, mindful of the cost but equally mindful that the public won't cough up extra taxes for something that may never happen, the then-reunification minister had the bright idea of establishing a "reunification jar" into which donations could be dropped.

Whenever I or my colleagues asked ministry officials what riches the jar contained, we were smilingly told, "No comment." (The reunification jar concept seems to have been quietly dropped.)

And reunification talk is being noted. Some pundits are actually taking President Park at her word: For example, noted Bloomberg columnist William Pesek has urged her to get on with reunification ― as if it were within her power.

The talk is also monitored in Pyongyang, which is intimidated by it and bristles at it. Ergo, Seoul babbles about reunification makes it less, not more likely.

Would a better strategy not be to stop talking and dreaming about the results of reunification, and instead focus on things which are smaller in scale, shorter in term, achievable and pragmatic?

Such things might include establishing a peaceful modus vivendi. They might include increasing cross-border transport and communications, as well as commercial and economic engagement.

These bilateral or multi-lateral measures could be buttressed by unilateral South Korean measures to build trust and gradually notch up engagement.

These could include loosening restrictions that prevent South Koreans from travelling to, trading with, investing in and otherwise engaging with North Koreans. They might include permitting a freer climate for cultural, sporting and intellectual intercourse. They might include lifting restrictions on the North Korean media.

Cold warriors will bawl that such moves would breach defenses, leading to the infiltration and revolutionization of South Korean society. I say: bollocks.

South Koreans are sophisticated enough to critically absorb North Korea's buffoonish propaganda. I strongly doubt if any more than a tiny fraction of Southerners would feel compelled to support North Korea's inane mish-mash of monarchic, corrupt "socialism" over their own democracy.

Above all: If Seoul and Pyongyang could coexist peacefully and permit an increasing interchange of goods and persons across the border, the benefits of reunification would be delivered without the divisiveness, costs and risks of reunification itself.

Andrew Salmon is a Seoul-based reporter and author. Reach him at andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk.